London: The Biography by Peter Ackroyd

I read an awful lot of interesting books last year and I regret that I did not take the time to record them so here seems as good a place as any and if there are nice publishers out there who want to send me preview copies of their books then I'm a more than willing recipient.

London: The Biography by Peter Ackroyd (Vintage - 2001)

After Peter Ackroyd finished writing this 800 page monster he suffered a heart attack and for Peter this was something quite appropriate of London as a city, an angry and violent place; a place that kills (although I might suggest that his portly stature belies a different truth). This is a history book without chronology which rather than following a standard narrative (Romans, Normans, Plague, Fire, Queen Vic, Empire and Blitz) is more a series of essays on London as Theatre, Crime and Punishment, Mobocracy and Violence etc... As disconnected as that sounds there are themes that penetrate the essays: London's innate theatricality or the continuities that exist and have throughout the centuries. Camberwell, for instance, as the home of disquiet was invaded by Wat Tyler during the peasants revolt, that the Chartist movement grew up there, that the Tolpuddle Martyrs were welcomed there first on their return from Botany Bay, that a revolutionary press was founded upon the green by the likes of Elanor Marx and that during his stay this press was used frequently by Vladimir Ilyich Lenin, that in the 90s the communist daily the Morning Star had its offices in the area and that now it is inhabited by the magazine for the homeless and unemployed, the Big Issue.

I've learnt some interesting details about events and people some of which leave me wondering how there has never been a film about them. The story of Jack Sheppherd is one such story. He was a criminal hero of london held at the infamous Newgate Prison which once stood where the Old Bailey stands today and who gained notoriety by escaping from confinement six times using his skills gained as a carpenter's apprentice.

The first time he was arrested he escaped within three hours by cutting open the roof and lowering himself to the ground using the sheets from his bed as a rope. The second time he was pinioned with links and fetters and managed to saw through the fetters, cut an iron restraint and bored through a wooden bar nine inches thick. While out he was recaptured by the notorious criminal taker Jonathan Wild and sentenced to death. Somehow he managed to smuggle in a spike with which he managed to carve an opening in the wall and with the help of friends on the outside was dragged out through it disappearing into the crowds of the Bartholemew Fair. Once again he was recaptured and brought back to Newgate and he was removed to the 'stone castle', chained to the floor, legs secured with irons and hands cuffed and kept under surveillance. Somehow he managed to slip out of the cuffs, loose a link from the chains on his legs, squeeze his body through the chains and then with a nail broke the locks of five doors on the way to his escape. During his freedom he stole some money, bought a suit and hired a coach and following on with the theme of London theatricality, drove the coach right through the front gates of Newgate Prison. This time he was recaptured within two weeks and sentenced to be hanged within the week. Sheppherd had one more escape planned but the pocket knife with which he wished to cut his noose was found upon his body and on the 16th November 1724 he was finally executed. It's a fantastic story with so much intrigue and showmanship, would be a wonderful film, I'm sure Johnny Depp's available.

Now for the confession, I didn't like this book. Peter Ackroyd's pretension strikes you from the off with the title 'The Biography' as if stating its place as the definitive book on London which it certainly is not. There is so much that annoys me, first is that he is a popular historian but his sources are of other popular historians (I can't count the number of times that Jenny Uglow is quoted for instance), there is little evidence of any actual academic historiography in view and in fact the book feels like an aggregation of other people's work. Quite often he uses literature when he's seeking to make a point which also annoys, I'm quite happy with quotations from literature but if you're trying to make a point about a characteristic of London history or people then surely the connections are better made with actual people or events? And speaking of events, some are so horribly glossed over (like the great plague) that you wonder how ever this book could be considered definitive. The interesting facts are too few and far between and the obscure points he makes could be made about any city and its relevance to London appear slim. I really did want to enjoy this book not least because it is about the city I live in and see about me every day but because I was going to be with it for 800 pages however Peter Ackroyd's pomp and arrogance were too much for me too overlook and I am confident that there are far better books on London history to be had out there.

To sum up, it's a bit disappointing.

3/5

The origins of mythology...possibly

This image is one you will probably recognise if you've followed the news recently. She is Lali and was born in a village on the edge of Delhi with an exceedingly rare condition called Craniofacial Duplication meaning that she has been born with two sets of eyes, noses, mouths and so on. In her native town she has been feted as a miracle. Her father admitted to being scared but it didn't take long for the paternal instincts to take over which is quite commendable of him. One could imagine that in less enlightened times she would either be locked into an institution. The reactions of the general public are, according to the BBC article on the subject, less enlightened:

"Faced with something they are unable to comprehend, the villagers believe she is the reincarnation of a Hindu goddess. There's even talk of a temple being built in her honour.

Lali doesn't remind me of any Hindu goddess but then I don't know many of them. She does, however, remind me of the Roman God Janus. Wikipedia reliably informs me that Janus was (or is I suppose if you believe in him, and if you don't I guess that makes you an atheist like me) the God for gates, doorways, beginnings and endings. What he is or was is less interesting than the origins of the mythology. Would it be an outlandish theory to argue that the legend of Janus was inspired by an early example of Craniofacial Duplication? Without our understanding of biology or physiology one can't begin to imagine what the reaction of early people would be to a child born with two faces. Would they sacrifice it to their God or celebrate it as, well, a miracle and build temples in its honour? Of course this isn't something I could begin to prove but when you start thinking along these lines then other myths begin to appear to potentially have wholly natural origins.


This is Lakshmi Tatma and she was a pair of ischiopagus conjoined twins born in yet another village in India back in 2005. Her twins head atrophied in the womb due to underdevelopment and so it looked like she was one girl with four arms and four legs. She recently underwent 27 hour surgery to remove the extraneous limbs and will probably be back in hospital many more times in her life. According to yet another BBC article the reaction of the people of her village was to announce her birth as being the reincarnation of yet another Hindu God:

"The child has been hailed by some in her village in Bihar as the reincarnation of the multi-limbed Hindu goddess of wealth, Lakshmi."

Lakshmi isn't the only Hindu God whose appearance that might have its origins in this particular form of conjoined twins. This is of course Vishnu, the God of preservation. I'm sure I've got you thinking now because it is possible. Let me give you another idea, this time from something that has its origins in the world of voodoo. Rabies is a viral zoonotic neuralinvasive disease which causes inflammation of the brain in mammals. It is nearly always lethal (in fact there are only six known cases where people have survived). Let me quote from wikipedia on the symptoms it involves:

"The period between infection and the first flu-like symptoms is normally two to twelve weeks, but can be as long as two years. Soon after, the symptoms expand to slight or partial paralysis, cerebral dysfunction, anxiety, insomnia, confusion, agitation, abnormal behavior, paranoia, terror, hallucinations, progressing to delirium.[citation needed] The production of large quantities of saliva and tears coupled with an inability to speak or swallow are typical during the later stages of the disease; this can result in "hydrophobia", where the victim has difficulty swallowing because the throat and jaw become slowly paralyzed, shows panic when presented with liquids to drink, and cannot quench his or her thirst. The disease itself was also once commonly known as hydrophobia, from this characteristic symptom. The patient "foams at the mouth" because they cannot swallow their own saliva for days and it gathers in the mouth until it overflows."

Just as interesting as the symptoms are the methods of transmission:

"The virus is usually present in the nerves and saliva of a symptomatic rabid animal. The route of infection is usually, but not necessarily, by a bite. In many cases the infected animal is exceptionally aggressive, may attack without provocation, and exhibits otherwise uncharacteristic behaviour."

Zombies, zombies, zombies...that's what I could have just been describing. Mythology has its origins wherever there are unexplained phenomena and from our desire to have an answer so that we think we know the truth about the world around us we latch on to those who purport to have the answers. Have you noticed that miracles don't happen so much these days...go figure.

Can you keep a secret?

I'm tired and grouchy so what better vehicle for what little energy I have remaining than to take a moment aside to wax whingeful about a pet peeve of mine: PostSecret. For the origins of my distaste it is probably best to illustrate with an example. "When I see an airplane I watch it in case it crashes. So I can be a witness (on tv)". What utter drivel, I'm sorry but this really gets on my tits, this is no secret and it is certainly not worthy of dissemination, it is an awful transparent attempt at sounding deep and profound. Arse gravy of the highest order. I was impressed by Post Secret when it first gained notoriety and was shocked by the frank and disturbing admissions that you found scrawled anonymously on the postcards they featured but as with so many internet phenomena they have become the victims of their own success and being 'published' on their website, or in one of their many books has become something to be desired...even if you don't happen to actually have a secret.

This post for instance: "I like hopeful street art". Yup, I can see why you're keeping that one to yourself. Admitting that in certain parts of this town would be like admitting you were David Mellor or even worse, John Selwyn Gummer (I'm sorry if you don't know who these people are...hell I'm sorry I do). Anywho...yes...the point is that I really couldn't give one toss what mood of street art you like, your profundity has the depth of Peter Andre and commands about the same amount of my interest.

So to the producers of the unadulterated piffle, can you keep a secret? Please?

Unmoved by the unmoved mover

It's funny how in philosophy everything seems to begin with Aristotle. Even the most basic philosophical distinction, that between physics and metaphysics or essentially between science and philosophy dates back to his book 'the Physics' -- everything that didn't make it into that book forms the basis of what we call metaphysics.

When it came to the origins of the universe Aristotle wasn't so advanced as to predict the big bang theory however he posited the idea of a first cause, a cause that was itself not the effect of a prior cause but a first cause. Aristotle argued that there is movement in the universe and this movement had an origin, this is the unmoved mover

“The rule of many is not good; one ruler let there be."

Thomas Aquinas took this argument further with his Quinquae viae or 'Five Ways' in his Summa Theologiae as he used this Aristotelian concept as an argument for the existence of God. The argument takes this format:

1. There is movement in the universe
2. Everything that moves is moved by a mover
3. It is impossible for there to be infinite regress
4. Therefore there must be a first mover, an unmoved mover from which all other movement is generated
5. We call this mover God

This is, of course, clearly bollocks. First of all there are very big and unprovable assumptions like 'everything that moves is moved by a mover' and 'it is impossible for there to be infinite regress'...why? But I'm feeling very generous so lets move beyond that to 'we call this mover God'. One of the most basic precepts of semiotics is that the naming of concepts is arbitrary so by calling anything 'God' what magic did Aquinas wish to impart? Why not call lamppost or how about Tarquin Fin-tim-lin-bin-whin-bim-lim-bus-stop-F'tang-F'tang-Olé-Biscuitbarrel?

My generosity knows no bounds and lets even look past the arbitrary name relationship and call it, as Aquinas wished, God but what do we 'know' (and I emphasise know here in the platonic: justified true belief sense) about this God...well sod all actually, that he is a first movement and that's it. Even if you ignored the logical problems all this argument supports is a Thomas Paine type Deism where God features merely as a first cause and not as an all powerful hands on deity. But still one step further, lets assume that the God is an all powerful hands on God...why would that make him good? I think the good/bad dichotomy is drivel and a hangover of our binary underdeveloped brains, but lets suppose there is a God, and for all I know there might be as I can't disprove one in the way that I cannot disprove Russell's teapot or the flying spaghetti monster, but even if there is then what possible grounds could I have for believing him peaceful rather than malign because if it's the bible then Yahweh is not a God I wish to know.

Newspeak

George Orwell was an intelligent man and seemed to have quite a good grasp of semiotics and the importance of language and its capacity to structure and regulate thought. In 1984 he created the concept of 'newspeak' which was a creation of the state with the aim of regulating how people think and exorcising thought which would be harmful to its interests:

"The purpose of Newspeak was not only to provide a medium of expression for the world-view and mental habits proper to the devotees of Ingsoc, but to make all other modes of thought impossible. It was intended that when Newspeak had been adopted once and for all and Oldspeak forgotten, a heretical thought, that is a thought diverging from the principles of Ingsoc should be literally unthinkable, at least so far as it is dependent on words"

The word free, as in political freedom, became undesirable in Oceania and its use was restriced to a negative use, for instance the dog was free from lice. I could go on and list Newspeak words but Wikipedia does it better than I could so I suggest you check out the relevant article. What interests me more than the fictional world is how this principle is used in the here and now.

A good example of Newspeak is the political correctness campaign or the campaign for plain English and these are two campaigns I generally support. The former started off a campaign to make our use of language more gender neutral. For many, gone are the days of chairmen and manholecovers we now have chairperson and peopleholecovers. I'm generally supportive not because I think any one instance will offend either sex but because we have a language that belies a history of male dominance and reaffirms those positions by their constant use. The campaign for plain English works in a similar way by making the complicated langauge used in law for instance, or politics, accessible to the layman. In the law this has meant the irradication of much of the Latin used, terms like plaintiff and defendant are now replaced by claimant and respondent. They seem like small gestures but they are steps towards the breaking down of class and gender divisions.

More cynical attempts to control public perception with Newspeak are the recent wars in Afghanistan and Iraq. In Afghanistan those who fought against the invading coalition forces were not the resistance but they were enemy combatants, a position that denied them the basic Geneva Convention rights. In Iraq the term used was 'insurgents' but even this seems to be politically sensitive as it admits there is a problem and now the official term is concerned local nationals. Politics is rife with this sort of language, ways of circumventing truth by the careful choice of words and this is a major reason people are disillusioned by the process.

I'd always rather be won over by cunning argument than subverted by the 'right' words.

I've got two legs

At work I operate with two monitors. I always wondered what sort of crazy people would do that and consigned it to pit of things done by graphic designers and software editors. I actually need to access enough documents simultaneously these days that I could probably do with another.

The number two is quite interesting because it's all around us, not just my visual display units but my eyes, ears, nostrils, nipples, legs, arms and other assorted extremities...ahem. There are two magnetic poles, two sexes, two terrestrial BBC channels, two premier league football teams in Manchester...okay the last two aren't so interesting. Early man would have associated with the number two as that was the number of large celestial light producing bodies in the sky visible with the naked eye, the Sun and the Moon. In fact much of our understanding of the world comes from contrasting things with their polar opposite; good from bad, dark from light, sweet from sour and so on. This is a key tenet of structural semiotics if anyone's interested.

So, two is quite interesting but that makes three even more so because in many early cultures it simply did not exist, counting schemes went one, two, lots. In early Mesopotamia they used the word 'es' for three but it didn't mean three it just meant plural, just as we would add an 's' on the end of words for pluralisation, it worked in the same way. Even better were the civilisations where numbers greater than two were counted in combinations of one and two. In Australia, for instance, the Aranda used 'ninta' for one and 'tara' for two, three became 'tara mi ninta' and four was 'tara ma tara', any more than four and they were back to 'lots'. There are similar examples from Ancient Egypt and China but I fear I'd only be getting repetitive.

I'm by no means ignorant of technology but computers generally baffle me. They have one great advantage over us in that they do not have to conceptualise numbers which we do if they are to 'mean' something to us. We're not so good at dealing with the abstract, and even then numbers greater than five or six become difficult to conceive. The fact that we see the world still with such binary vision leads me to the conclusion that we've not evolved as far as we give ourselves credit and strangely I find it comforting.

Barack Obama is a homosexual martian

I also understand that he's a gypsy paedophile, a former member of the KGB and the love child of Fidel Castro and Michael Moore. He actually flew the first plane into the trade centre and is single-handedly responsible for most unsolved murders across America.

I'd like to take this opportunity to congratulate Hilary Clinton on taking campaign tips from Rupert Murdoch, it's about time sister.